Hitting the cutoff man. Moving the runner into scoring position. Turning the double play. Keeping the ball down in the strike zone. Will spring training pay off come September? Let’s find out, because it’s time to play ball!

Finally, something to take our attention away from this confounding stock market.

Like baseball and pumpkin pie, individual common stock ownership has been a dynamic part of American life for most of the last century, and has taken on a heightened significance during the last two decades, largely because of two events that occurred simultaneously.

From 1982 through 1999, the widely followed S&P 500 Index provided investors an annualized return of 18.5 percent, a number dramatically higher than its historical return of 11 percent dating back to 1926. Ironically, the beginning of this 18-year bull market coincided nicely with the introduction and evolution of company sponsored, employee-directed 401(k) retirement plans.

The result? Millions of investors now tune in to the stock market each day, not out of a passing interest, but of necessity. These are the people who have accepted the enormous responsibility of saving and investing their retirement accounts in a prudent manner.

During this same time period, a healthy business environment allowed many publicly traded companies to flourish amid impressive growth in earnings and revenue. As investors, it is only natural to want to turn these successful companies into successful investments within our portfolios.

But do great companies always make great investments? Wall Street would like you to think so, and boldly advertises its bevy of stock picking analysts who guarantee you just that — a smorgasbord buy-list of great companies for your portfolio.

Unfortunately, it is one of Wall Street’s greatest myths. Slow growing companies, companies in financial trouble, companies with poor management have shown to be an equally as good, if not better investment than successful companies. Why? Let’s take a look by strolling through two very different neighborhood grocery stores.

The first grocery opened last month and already its parking lot is full. It is staffed by friendly, helpful employees. Its bright aisles are overflowing with our favorite products. The free samples provide a good substitute for dinner if you don’t feel like cooking that night. A major corporation has just relocated to an adjacent neighborhood, and housing construction is booming all around.

The second grocery store is located in a run-down part of town. The front door consists of a torn screen. Instead of helping you, the proprietor would rather be watching the little TV perched on a shelf behind the counter. The two dimly lit aisles contain a smattering of goods. You feel compelled to check expiration dates before purchasing. The frozen food section has three inches of ice. At least the beer is cold.

Which grocery store is a better investment? I suspect our first impulse would be to own the new grocery store, because that is the store that appeals to the part of us that wants to be associated with successful companies. But at what level does this store’s purchase price make it too expensive and risky based not only on its current earnings, but more importantly the inherent uncertainty of its future growth?

The second grocery store certainly doesn’t appeal to our tasteful shopping needs, nor our portfolios. But at some point the purchase price might be low enough to justify ownership, based on an unimpressive but consistent cash flow it has generated over the past sixty years.

It goes without saying that our natural tendency is to try to select the best companies for our portfolios. Most investors wouldn’t have it any other way. How many times have you heard someone say “I found a company that has poor management, stagnant earnings, no new products in the pipeline, and is poorly ranked by Value Line. I think I’ll buy it!”

In fact, quite the opposite happens. We spend hours poring over earnings reports, talking to coworkers, and tuning in to CNBC, all in an effort to find the next Cisco Systems (Nasdaq:CSCO).

What happens when millions of investors embrace the same investment strategy? On February 6, 2001, CSCO reported quarterly earnings 50 percent higher than the same quarter last year. With quarterly revenues of $6.75 billion, this earnings growth is quite an accomplishment for a company of its size.

What happened next? Shares of Cisco promptly dropped 10 percent in value. Why? Maybe it was because thousands of investors had already priced the phenomenal earnings growth into the stock price, and when the company announced earnings that were one penny short of expectations, well, you know the rest of the story.

Which grocery store are you pursuing in your desire to build wealth, ignore Wall Street and get on with your life? Coffeehouse Investors, recognizing that slower growing grocery stores (value companies) have provided long-term returns every bit as good, if not better than the fast growing grocery stores (growth companies), opt to own them both.

For investors who are serious about building long term wealth and have allocated a portion of their assets to common stocks, it helps to have marketplace efficiencies work for you — not against you. Recognizing that the pursuit of successful companies is likely to hinder your investment success is a good place to begin.